General Discussion

The Doctor.

(17,266 posts)

87. So, since the judge banned Obama from using the provision,

Reply to lovuian (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2012, 08:14 AM

Jun 2012

what happens when another president is in office?

Or is this just another disingenuous Obama-hater headline?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

118 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NDAA unconstitutional: Federal judge bans Obama from indefinitely detaining Americans [View all] lovuian Jun 2012 OP

That's awesome news. teddy51 Jun 2012 #1

I think so to lovuian Jun 2012 #2

There seem to be allot of things along those lines he doesn't get. teddy51 Jun 2012 #10

There's no reason for him to "get" things that are completely imaginary in the first place. TheWraith Jun 2012 #13

That might be your take on it, but others don't see it that way. teddy51 Jun 2012 #16

how do you explain the Judge's ruling? lovuian Jun 2012 #17

It's explained by part of the NDAA very definitely pertaining to US citizens. nt MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #22

Funny that at least one judge and several that had a part in writing the thing TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #32

So you believe your interpretation is the only interpretation. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #36

exactly and so did the Senators who signed it lovuian Jun 2012 #46

Some might say it doesnt really matter. Bush already inacted indefinate detention rhett o rick Jun 2012 #62

No, SCOTUS decided that they needed a military review panel for due process. boppers Jun 2012 #72

Thank you. I agree she addressed indefinite detention and said, "but only providing that the rhett o rick Jun 2012 #95

The judge read it in there and ruled it unconstitutional. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #70

You are incorrect. It does not say that, the government would not conceded that and the Judge morningfog Jun 2012 #92

The Judge disagrees with you. Your reading is incorrect. morningfog Jun 2012 #110

Apparently, that means nothing Ter Jun 2012 #75

Cool abelenkpe Jun 2012 #3

Whatever it takes. Fine by me, hope this holds up all the way. freshwest Jun 2012 #6

You have a good point there as well! One would think that Democratic Senators would have teddy51 Jun 2012 #11

Didn't the Obama administration propose this? lark Jun 2012 #104

Very good. Nt xchrom Jun 2012 #4

Rt.com.. SidDithers Jun 2012 #5

If I wanted to hear lies about lies, I'd just watch Fox News. nt TheWraith Jun 2012 #7

Is it inaccurate if so I'm sorry lovuian Jun 2012 #8

As a rule, Russia Today's accuracy... TheWraith Jun 2012 #12

I agree the headline is crap but the ruling seems to be there lovuian Jun 2012 #14

If the Judge saw a problem with it and stopped it, then there must have been a problem. teddy51 Jun 2012 #25

Wrong. boppers Jun 2012 #76

Part of it certainly does - and it's hideous MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #19

No, it's not. Sorry, it's one of the best news sources available right now. Although it does sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #58

Complete bullshit. girl gone mad Jun 2012 #69

"Judge Forrest does include in her ruling, however, that Americans can be indefinitely detained" boppers Jun 2012 #73

Interesting that you cant find it in the bill when lots of people, including a judge can find it. rhett o rick Jun 2012 #101

Do you accept LA Times? morningfog Jun 2012 #18

thanks morningfog lovuian Jun 2012 #20

Good! People who think that provision was hunky dory whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #27

If the story is being reported in US papers... SidDithers Jun 2012 #37

Why are we being treated to Red Baiting? whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #38

... SidDithers Jun 2012 #39

... whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #41

... SidDithers Jun 2012 #64

Good question. Sick of this kind of baiting. The only people I know who hate RT in this country sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #113

put the US stories up lovuian Jun 2012 #40

Post 18... SidDithers Jun 2012 #42

Yep it is a fact lovuian Jun 2012 #45

If the story is in the LA times, why did you use rt.com?...nt SidDithers Jun 2012 #51

If the story is in both, why does it matter? Occulus Jun 2012 #60

Why not? Even Hillary watches RT because 'they are good' she says. It is an excellent news sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #61

He probably just playing with Riftaxe Jun 2012 #63

RT is a far more reliable source than the right leaning LA Times. Why do you have more sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #100

Because the LA Times is Right Wing rag. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #115

Any comment on the actual story? morningfog Jun 2012 #65

Why dont you discuss the issue instead of trying to deflect the discussion? nm rhett o rick Jun 2012 #99

So, the LA times story doesn't agree with the rt story. boppers Jun 2012 #74

Do you have a link to the ruling itself or a link to an alternative analysis? morningfog Jun 2012 #84

I don't think I could do it better than you did. boppers Jun 2012 #116

Thank you. morningfog Jun 2012 #117

The media tend to gloss over important details, and go for sensationalism. boppers Jun 2012 #118

Here is what it actually says: morningfog Jun 2012 #93

The LA Times is a Right Wing rag. Surprising to see it here considering the huge outcry over sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #114

see post 18 and then apologize!!! lol. fat chance of that! Logical Jun 2012 #31

Here is a you tube lovuian Jun 2012 #9

Who wants to bet $20 that Obama will fight like a banshee MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #15

You have a point and let's see what he does next lovuian Jun 2012 #21

"NDAA which was badly needed" Why was it badly needed? teddy51 Jun 2012 #26

Fighting' TERRA!!! MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #50

You and I both know that's Bullshit. This whole bill is just another way to steal a little teddy51 Jun 2012 #52

Do you actually not know what the NDAA is? boppers Jun 2012 #77

I think it has a few more sinister parts to it than it does good ones. Those things may teddy51 Jun 2012 #102

If he starts using it against the GOP... Comrade_McKenzie Jun 2012 #28

And when a future GOP administration uses it against us... Zalatix Jun 2012 #49

that would suck abelenkpe Jun 2012 #34

He can just drone them instead KurtNYC Jun 2012 #48

He's making a list, he's checking it twice. MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #57

the veal is good ... tip your waiters .... heh .... nt littlewolf Jun 2012 #66

Actually, I'm sure he's glad that it was struck down. The Doctor. Jun 2012 #81

So the DOJ needs to start defending DOMA again? MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #82

Obama didn't sign DOMA. The Doctor. Jun 2012 #85

Why does that matter? MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #89

He has to fight it. NCTraveler Jun 2012 #103

Does he have to fight for DOMA as well? nt MannyGoldstein Jun 2012 #109

That is good news bhikkhu Jun 2012 #23

I'm happy about this regardless of who happens to be in the Whitehouse. leeroysphitz Jun 2012 #24

wow, GREAT NEWS Logical Jun 2012 #29

The judge is an Obama appointee, so he gets half credit cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #30

I really like Obama.. but he is a PRESIDENT.. and ALL annabanana Jun 2012 #33

If the government appeals............. Swede Atlanta Jun 2012 #35

if the Appelate court overturns it then America justice system lovuian Jun 2012 #44

K&R for a modicum of sanity. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jun 2012 #43

Judge Forrest is a tinfoil hatter! Zalatix Jun 2012 #47

Blind Faithers whatchamacallit Jun 2012 #54

Did you read the article? The rulings? boppers Jun 2012 #78

Quotes would help. nm rhett o rick Jun 2012 #96

But not against journalists and activists, morningfog Jun 2012 #98

Hooray! NS2012 Jun 2012 #53

K&R! quinnox Jun 2012 #55

K&R Solly Mack Jun 2012 #56

great news Beringia Jun 2012 #59

K & R littlewolf Jun 2012 #67

She was appointed by Obama! usregimechange Jun 2012 #68

For the people insisting that the law could never be applied to American citizens, I have a question Jim Lane Jun 2012 #71

It's already being applied to American citizens. Has been for years. boppers Jun 2012 #80

HUGE K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2012 #79

So just reading some of the thread responses, a few people are disappointed...... marmar Jun 2012 #83

Very disturbing to see that marmar. But thankfully, it is only a few. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #105

The soap opera like, fainting spells exhibited by the "Source Guardians" are, and always have been Dragonfli Jun 2012 #106

The Obama administration ProSense Jun 2012 #86

All true, but the Government was unwilling to state that morningfog Jun 2012 #94

Guidelines are Sooo binding. "The administration later issued guidelines in February which rhett o rick Jun 2012 #97

So, since the judge banned Obama from using the provision, The Doctor. Jun 2012 #87

It's the headline on the story at the link, n'est-ce pas? marmar Jun 2012 #88

Je sais. The Doctor. Jun 2012 #91

Cool, but what about non-citizens? Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2012 #90

Yes, because the US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and as such we are bound by it. sabrina 1 Jun 2012 #108

K&R And big Thank you to the judge. idwiyo Jun 2012 #107

Nov 2008 Mr Obama will close Gitmo.. end torture. lib2DaBone Jun 2012 #111

Obama should have known better than to sign that bill. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #112